Denarzi

Stay for the Perspective, BA Philosophy of Politics, Ethics, and Law.

[ً @artfuIchaos]

why tf is the pressure to “be the bigger person” always placed on the person who was wronged?

[Denarzi @Denarz1]

@jameskharkins1 @BamaSaltyMarine “Any outcome that displeases the woman is a loss for the man”

My god, is your entire worldview bent to cater to women’s desires?

[Karen🇺🇲 @NegressKaren]

@AntisepticHorse Jesus was God coming to earth to personally tell the Jews He rejects them completely, He's no longer their God, and Christians are now God's chosen people.

[nowa @tomnowa]

@wylfcen It's not even correct.

Imagine thinking agrarian and mercantile societies don't function on calendars, timetables and schedules.

[Derrick Evans @DerrickEvans4WV]

@RepJackKimble Resign now you sorry POS.

Real Americans, the backbone of this country are working countless hours that are physically demanding to make around $60k year before taxes that you send to other countries.

You are so out of touch with reality it’s unreal.

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

Put a 100 marbles in a jar, 14 blue marbles to represent the population of the West, and 86 red marbles to represent everyone else.

If you draw a marble, blindly and at random, from the jar, you have a 14% chance of drawing a blue marble.

This how @justalexoki sees the moment of conception.

He thinks he is a random generic soul, fresh from the Well of Random Generic Souls, drawing a marble from the jar. 14% blue, 86% red.

But you don't draw the marble. You are the marble.

A blue marble only has a 14% chance of being selection in a random draw. But, in or out of the jar, a blue marble has a 100% chance of being blue.

This is the Seagull Test, which is an inversion of the Breakfast Test.

The Breakfast Test requires you to describe a hypothetical timeline where you skipped breakfast this morning, to prove you can imagine hypotheticals.

The Seagull Test requires you to reject the question "What if you were a seagull?" as a nonsense question, to prove that you understand the difference between valid and nonsense hypotheticals.

You can skip breakfast and still be you, but there is no version of you that can be a seagull, and no seagull that can, in any meaningful way, be you.

To pass the Seagull Test, you must reject the question and refuse to answer, or, better yet, reframe the question so that it asks for the intended information in a coherent way, i.e. "What does it feel like to be a seagull?"

Which is a very, very different question.

I can, with good observational data and some intelligent speculation, possibly understand the thoughts and feelings of a Pakistani brick layer.

But I cannot be one in any coherently possible universe, because I am, by definition, me.

A blue marble.

[𝐆𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐝𝐮𝐬 @ImperiumFirst]

Nick Fuentes / Dan Bilzerian feud summarized

[Denarzi @Denarz1]

@kryptoklutz @DanBilzerian @Howlingmutant0 true, but I'd say that you're arguing about a typo, while I'm arguing about a substantive difference. To each as they will though.

[ThatGuyFromHS @ThatGuyFromHS]

@yonann Dave: "Don't ever take on debt for any reason."
Also Dave: "If you don't take on $90,000 of someone else's debt, you should die alone."

These goddamn Boomers, man. They are genuinely the worst.

[Denarzi @Denarz1]

@DanBilzerian @Howlingmutant0 Going to far is tautologically wrong. Otherwise it wouldn’t be “to far”. I think you meant to say “he doesn’t go far enough”

[QC @QiaochuYuan]

this is kind of an amazing parable about scientific materialism. it speaks for itself but i'm going to autistically overanalyze it anyway, for fun -

the question pretends to ask about what a person would do in a social situation but it is actually asking for the "right answer," and the "right answer" involves looking at the situation "objectively," which means completely ignoring the relational texture of the little brother being upset in favor of an abstract argument (which the teacher's comments leave implicit) that he "shouldn't" be upset because the situation is "actually" "objectively" fair even if he doesn't feel that way

this is a very specific way of looking at the situation which school trains you to think of as universally correct, not even a choice that you're making, just the way things "really are." the kid's answer ignores all of this to interpret the question literally as written, maintain focus on the relational texture, and see the situation as a relational rupture they can repair through kindness. instead of teaching the little brother to prioritize abstract concepts over their feelings he teaches the little brother not only that kindness is real and that his family has his back but also that, since the older sibling finds it easy to give up their cornbread, perhaps the cornbread doesn't matter that much anyway

[Free Northerner @FreeNortherner]

This kind of complication is counterproductive, because any child smart enough to benefit from it will naturally figure out a system of his own (then be punished for not showing his work) and it makes simple math far more complicated than necessary for the less intelligent.

[doxie @doxie_gay]

there’s actually a specific reason for this phenomenon and it’s scary... the hypothetical is that languages themselves are independent, evolving entities who govern the beings they hijack. the idea is that we don't even own our brains, we’re just biological rentals for a parasite that needs us to keep talking so it doesn’t die.

[TONY @TonyMichaelX]

You’re laughing. The Daily Wire just laid off six million employees and you’re laughing.

[𝙼𝚁. 𝙻𝙴𝙰𝙳𝚂𝙻𝙸𝙽𝙶𝙴𝚁 @MrLeadslinger]

If you’re too retarded to understand why the government shouldn’t be universally mandating equipment in your vehicle that can monitor you and determine whether to let your vehicle function or not then you don’t deserve the right to vote or even be a citizen really.

[Rand Paul @RandPaul]

The Fourth Amendment isn't optional. If the government wants to read your messages, search your data, or spy on you, they need a warrant. Period.

My Fourth Amendment Restoration and Protection Act ends warrantless surveillance of Americans.

[Mandy @MarindaVannoy1]

No matter where you stand politically, I think we can all come together and agree that putting spyware in our cars that watches what we do and can decide whether we’re even allowed to drive is a direct violation of our 4th amendment right and absolute tyranny.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Hello Julia, sans aucune ironie, c'est top que tu prennes le temps de te renseigner. Mais le problème quand on lit Marx aujourd'hui, c'est qu'on prend pour acquis sa prémisse de départ, alors qu'elle a été démontée scientifiquement il y a plus de 150 ans.

Toute la pensée de Marx repose sur la théorie de la valeur-travail. L'idée que la valeur d'un bien vient de la quantité de travail nécessaire pour le produire. Si tu acceptes cette prémisse, alors oui, tout son raisonnement tient. Le capitaliste "vole" la plus-value du travailleur, l'exploitation est mathématique, la révolution est inévitable.

Sauf qu'en 1871, trois économistes (Menger en Autriche, Jevons en Angleterre, Walras en Suisse) découvrent indépendamment la même chose : la valeur n'est pas objective, elle est subjective et marginale.

Un verre d'eau dans le désert vaut une fortune. Le même verre à côté d'une rivière ne vaut rien. Le travail incorporé est identique. Donc le travail ne détermine pas la valeur. C'est le consommateur qui valorise un bien selon son utilité marginale dans un contexte donné.

Exemple concret : tu peux passer 1000 heures à tricoter un pull moche que personne ne veut. Selon Marx, ce pull a énormément de valeur (beaucoup de travail incorporé). Selon la réalité, il ne vaut rien. Parce que personne n'en veut.

À l'inverse, Bernard Arnault crée des milliards de valeur non pas parce qu'il "exploite" mais parce qu'il a su anticiper et organiser des désirs humains à grande échelle. La valeur est créée par la coordination, pas extraite par le vol.

Cette découverte (la révolution marginaliste) a invalidé tout l'édifice marxiste. Pas pour des raisons idéologiques, pour des raisons scientifiques. C'est pour ça que plus aucun département d'économie sérieux au monde n'enseigne Marx comme un cadre d'analyse valide. On l'enseigne en histoire de la pensée.

Maintenant, le truc important. Si ton intention en lisant Marx c'est d'aider les pauvres (c'est une intention noble), alors tu vas être surprise par ce qui suit.

Regarde les chiffres de la Banque mondiale. En 1820, 90% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Cette chute historique ne s'est PAS produite dans les pays qui ont appliqué Marx. Elle s'est produite dans les pays qui ont libéralisé leur économie.

Chine post-1978, Vietnam post-1986, Inde post-1991, Pologne post-1989. À chaque fois qu'un pays libéralise, des centaines de millions de gens sortent de la pauvreté en une génération. À chaque fois qu'un pays applique Marx (URSS, Cambodge, Corée du Nord, Venezuela), c'est la famine et les goulags.

Ce n'est pas une opinion, c'est l'expérience la plus massive jamais menée en sciences sociales. Plusieurs milliards de cobayes humains, sur un siècle.

Donc paradoxalement, si tu aimes vraiment les pauvres, la position la plus cohérente n'est pas d'être marxiste. C'est d'être pour la liberté économique. Parce que c'est empiriquement la seule chose qui a jamais sorti massivement les gens de la misère.

Pour creuser, je te recommande trois lectures qui vont changer ta vision :

"La Loi" de Frédéric Bastiat (court, lumineux, gratuit en ligne)
"La Route de la Servitude" de Hayek
"Économie en une leçon" de Henry Hazlitt
Bonne lecture, et vraiment chapeau de chercher à comprendre plutôt que de rester dans tes certitudes. C'est rare.

[STUNNER @Cr7Godbrand]

Men are willing to submit (loyal) to other men who are smarter, more logical, and better leaders in order to make the country work.

When you watch survival series, you'll notice the men quickly choose a leader and split themselves into groups: one for hunting, one for finding wood to build nests, and one for building the nest.

You know what the women did? They were crying like little kid. Couldn’t even form a group.
They even contaminated their own drinking water by trying to preserve the food they had inside the container, and when it got spoiled, they poured the contaminated water into the river and contaminated it.

Now,
Men understand hierarchies, and that’s why loyalty to other men is what birthed the civilization you enjoy today. The men giving the orders had the resources; they funded the projects to discover oil and gas, technology, infrastructures, medicines, outer space, planets, planes, and so on.

Women don’t believe in hierarchies due to them believing we are equal; they can’t follow instructions, think outside the group, and have others listen and follow.

They're too egotistical, weak, and lazy, so submitting to another woman that will be bossing her around for the betterment of society is what they will never accept.

They would rather watch the society collapse, just like how they are doing now, than submit to someone smarter and more logical than them. This is why matriarchal societies went into extinction. Women killed it by themselves because of their egos and laziness.